37
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
- as regards Mr. Silver’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1)
concerning the refusal of his 1972 petition (see paragraph 12 above), no
separate issue arose under Article 13 (art. 13);
- its opinion concerning Article 10 (art. 10) (see paragraph 107 above)
rendered it unnecessary to examine under Article 13 (art. 13) the Article 10
(art. 10) aspects of the applicants’ complaints.
110. The Court shares the Commission’s opinion. Having regard to its
decision on Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) (see paragraphs 8O-82 above), there is no
need to examine Mr. Silver’s complaint under Article 13 (art. 13); this is
because the requirements of the latter Article (art. 13) are less strict than,
and are here absorbed by, those of the former (see, inter alia, the Sporrong
and Lönnroth judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p.32, § 88).
Again, there is no call to examine under Article 13 (art. 13) the Article 10
(art. 10) aspects of the complaints, since Articles 8 and 10 (art. 8, art. 10)
overlap in this case (see paragraph 107 above).
B. Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 13+8)
111. The same does not apply to the Article 8 (art. 8) aspects of the
applicants’ complaints, especially as the Court has decided to consider in
the context of Article 13 (art. 13) the question of safeguards against abuse of
the powers to control prisoners’ correspondence (see paragraph 90 above).
The Commission, having examined various possible channels of
complaint, came to the conclusion that there was no effective domestic
remedy and, hence, a violation of Article 13 (art. 13). The Government
requested the Court to hold that the facts of the case disclosed no breach of
that provision or, alternatively, that they would disclose no such breach after
the coming into effect of the revised Orders.
l12. Having held that the scope of the present case does not extend to the
correspondence control system in force since December 1981 (see
paragraph 79 above), the Court is unable to examine the Government’s
alternative plea.
113. The principles that emerge from the Court’s jurisprudence on the
interpretation of Article 13 (art. 13) include the following:
(a) where an individual has an arguable claim to be the victim of a
violation of the rights set forth in the Convention, he should have a remedy
before a national authority in order both to have his claim decided and, if
appropriate, to obtain redress (see the above-mentioned Klass and others
judgment, Series A no. 28, p. 29, § 64);
(b) the authority referred to in Article 13 (art. 13) may not necessarily be
a judicial authority but, if it is not, its powers and the guarantees which it
affords are relevant in determining whether the remedy before it is effective
(ibid., p. 30, § 67);